W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:33:14 +0000
Message-ID: <43F08A9A.8040701@hp.com>
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


Enrico Franconi wrote:
> Regarding the points below (about which I'm still waiting),

That text (in the definition) was something that the WG made a decision about. 
  I don't think I have license to make changes without further a WG decision 
(and you weren't there on Tuesday).

Dan - can I apply the changes?
Or apply them for WG review?

 > I got
> further feedback about being unclear the 'fixed' role of BGP' and B,  

Probably helpful if you said where from.

> which in fact do not appear anymore after section 2.5. We need some  
> text emphasing this fact; something like at the end of 2.5.1
> "From now on we will say that a BGP matches with pattern solution S  
> on graph G, omitting the specific E-entailment, the fixed scoping set  
> B, and the fixed scoping graph BGP'."
> 
> Does it make sense?

Yes

> cheers
> --e.

	Andy

> 
> 
> On 4 Feb 2006, at 12:01, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Jan 2006, at 20:26, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>>> On 30 Jan 2006, at 19:01, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>>>> Enrico Franconi wrote:
>>>>>> """
>>>>>> Definition: Basic Graph Pattern E-matching
>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>> """
>>>>> Awaiting consensus.
>>> This definition was the outcome of the WG decision last week.   
>>> There needs to be stronger reasons for changing it.
>> I still believe that this definition requires a restyling, due to:
>>
>> 1) missing explicit quantification (some term has been properly  
>> introduced before being mentioned: B and BGP')
>>
>> 2) the notion of "introduced by" should be replaced by the more  
>> precise "in the range of"
>>
>> 3) we need to emphasise that G' and B are somehow fixed - so that  
>> we can ignore mentioning them from now on (as we actually do  
>> whenever we mention matching in the rest of the document).
>>
>> Let me propose a minimal editorial change wrt the current version.
>>
>> Current:
>> """
>> Given an entailment regime E, a basic graph pattern BGP, and RDF  
>> graph G, with scoping graph G', then BGP E-matches with pattern  
>> solution S on graph G with respect to scoping set B if:
>>
>>     * BGP' is a basic graph pattern that is graph-equivalent to BGP
>>     * G' and BGP' do not share any blank node labels.
>>     * (G' union S(BGP')) is a well-formed RDF graph for E-entailment
>>     * G E-entails (G' union S(BGP'))
>>     * The RDF terms introduced by S all occur in B.
>> """
>>
>> Proposed:
>> """
>> Given an entailment regime E, a scoping set B, a basic graph  
>> pattern BGP, an RDF graph G, a scoping graph G' for G, then BGP E- 
>> matches with pattern solution S on graph G with respect to the  
>> fixed scoping graph G' and scoping set B if:
>>
>>     * there is some BGP',
>>       a basic graph pattern that is graph-equivalent to BGP
>>     * G' and BGP' do not share any blank node labels
>>     * (G' union S(BGP')) is a well-formed RDF graph for E-entailment
>>     * G E-entails (G' union S(BGP'))
>>     * the RDF terms in the range S all occur in B
>> """
>>
>> cheers
>> --e.
> 
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 13:33:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT